CONDORCET'S THEORY

OF VOTING
H. P. YOUNG
University of Maryland

V-* ondorcet's criterion states that an alternative that defeats every

other by a simple majority is the socially optimal choice. Condorcet argued that if the
object of voting is to determine the "best" decision for society but voters sometimes
make mistakes in their judgments, then the majority alternative (if it exists) is statistical-
ly most likely to be the best choice. Strictly speaking, this claim is not true; in some
situations Borda's rule gives a sharper estimate of the best alternative. Nevertheless,
Condorcet did propose a novel and statistically correct rule for finding the most likely
ranking of the alternatives. This procedure, which is sometimes known as "Kemeny's
rule," is the unique social welfare function that satisfies a variant of independence of
irrelevant alternatives together with several other standard properties.

[Our aim is] to inquire by mere reasoning, what
degree of confidence the judgment of assemblies
deserves, whether large or small, subject to a
high or low plurality, split into several different
bodies or gathered into one only, composed of
men more or less wise.
—Condorcet
central problem
in democratic theory is to justify the prin-
ciple of majority rule. Why should the
opinion of a majority of citizens or of
elected representatives bind the rest of
society? One of the earliest and most cele-
brated answers to this question was at-
tempted by Rousseau in The Social Con-
tract (1762). The opinion of the majority
is legitimate, said Rousseau, because it
expresses the "general will." "When a law
is proposed in the people's assembly,
what is asked of them is not precisely
whether they approve of the proposition
or reject it, but whether it is in conformity
with the general will . . . each by giving
his vote gives his opinion on this ques-
tion, and the counting of votes yields a
declaration of the general will. When,
therefore, the opinion contrary to my
own prevails, this proves only that I have
made a mistake, and that what I believed
to be the general will was not so" (1962,
153).
This ambiguous and slightly disquieting
idea was given a more satisfactory expres-
sion some twenty years later by the math-
ematician and social philosopher Marie
Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, Marquis de
Condorcet.1 In his remarkable work,
Essai sur Vapplication de I'analyse a la
probability des decisions rendues a la
pluralite des voix (1785), Condorcet pro-
posed the following argument for decision
by majority: Enlightened voters honestly
attempt to judge what decision will best
serve society. They may occasionally
judge wrongly. But assuming that they
are more often right than wrong, the
majority opinion will very likely be "cor-
rect." This is just a property of large num-
bers and is intuitively obvious when there
are only two possible decisions. Con-
dorcet rigorously demonstrated this prop-
osition using the newly developed cal-
culus of probabilities. He then proceeded
to show how the idea could be elaborated
into a whole series of results about the

AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW

VOL.82 NO. 4 DECEMBER 1988
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
reliability of decisions of a voting body,
depending on its size, the competence of
its members, and the number of alterna-
tives under consideration. These "jury
theorems" have recently attracted con-
siderable attention (Grofman and Owen
1986; Grofman, Owen, and Feld 1983;
Urken and Traflet 1984) .2
It has not been widely recognized, how-
ever, that Condorcet showed how the
same arguments could be extended to the
case of more than two decisions. He was,
of course, the first to realize the complica-
tions that arise in this case, namely, the
possibility of cyclic majorities. But he
went on to suggest—or at least came very
close to suggesting—a definite rule for
ranking any number of alternatives even
when cyclic majorities are involved.
Admittedly, Condorcet's argument is dif-
ficult to follow and full of inconsistencies.
Moreover, the rule that he proposed is at
variance with the algorithm that he pro-
posed for computing it. Nevertheless, his
stated goal is clear: to find the social deci-
sion that is most likely to be "correct."
First I summarize Condorcet's proposal
and dispose of the claims made by some
commentators that Condorcet gave no
solution for the general case. I then show
that Condorcet's method can be inter-
preted as a statistical procedure for esti-
mating the ranking of the candidates that
is most likely to be correct. If only one
candidate is to be selected, however, then
an earlier method proposed by Con-
dorcet's rival Borda often gives better
results. In the final section I show that
Condorcet's decision rule can also be jus-
tified in modern social choice terms. It is
the unique ranking procedure that satis-
fies a variant of independence of irrele-
vant alternatives together with several
other standard conditions in social choice
theory.
Condorcet's Model
For Condorcet, as for Rousseau, the
1232
object of voting is not merely to balance
subjective opinions; rather, it is a collec-
tive quest for truth. In any field of candi-
dates (or agenda of alternatives) there is
some truly best candidate, a truly second-
best candidate, and so forth. What is
meant here by truly best? Ultimately it is
an undefined term, a notion that is postu-
lated in order to make the theory work—
like the ether in classical physics. To be
sure, in some situations the notion of
"best" decision is quite realistic. An exam-
ple is trial by jury, where the group deci-
sion problem is to determine guilt or inno-
cence. Another is the pooling of expert
opinions about an observable event, like
the state of the economy or tomorrow's-
weather.3
For the present let us grant Condorcet's
hypothesis that the notion of a "correct"
decision also applies to political decision
making. Thus, voters evaluate candidates
for political office in terms of their ability
to lead. Legislators consider bills in terms
of their potential contribution to the pub-
lic welfare. Granted that voters are at
least sometimes mindful of the public in-
terest and vote accordingly, Condorcet's
argument proceeds along the following
lines. People differ in their opinions be-
cause they are imperfect judges of which
decision really is best. If on balance each
voter is more often right than wrong,
however, then the majority view is very
likely to identify the decision that is objec-
tively best. In other words, the majority
opinion gives the best estimate, in a statis-
tical sense, of which candidate is most
likely to be best. One of Condorcet's
major contributions was to show how this
idea can be generalized to the case of
many candidates.
Consider a list of candidates (or
decisions) that are voted upon pair-
wise. Assume that each voter, when faced
with a comparison of the form, "Is a bet-
ter than b or b better than a?" chooses
correctly with some fixed probability
greater than 1/2. Each voter judges every
 Condorcet's Theory
pair of candidates and the results are tal-
lied in a voting matrix. Table 1 shows a
voting matrix with 13 voters and three
candidates. Each entry in the matrix gives
the total number of votes obtained by the
row candidate over the column candidate.
For example, the comparison a versus b
yields eight votes in favor of a, five in
favor of b. The comparison b versus c
yields eleven votes for b and two for c.
The comparison a versus c yields six for a
and seven for c. Notice that this vote
entails the cyclical majority a ~>b,b > c,
c>a.
Given a series of pairwise votes as in
Table 1, the problem posed by Condorcet
is to find the ranking of all the candidates
that is most likely to be correct, that is,
the ranking that would have produced the
observed votes with highest probability.
At first blush it might appear that this
problem is insoluble unless the compe-
tency levels of the voters are known. This
difficulty can be circumvented if one
makes the simplifying assumption (which
Condorcet did) that the voters all have the
same competence. In this case the answer
turns out to be independent of the level of
competence, as I shall show in the next
section. Here we shall content ourselves
with Condorcet's statement of the solu-
tion.
First some terminology is required. In
Condorcet's lexicon, an "opinion" is a
series of pairwise comparisons on the
alternatives. Each pairwise comparison is
called a "proposition" and written a > b,
etc. An opinion is said to be "impossible,"
"contradictory," or "absurd" if some of
the propositions composing it form a
cycle, such as a > b, b > c, c > a. Nor-
mally, each individual voter is able to
rank all of the candidates in a consistent
order. This is not necessarily true of the
aggregate opinion, however, as Table 1
demonstrates.4 To break such cyclic ma-
jorities, Condorcet proposed the follow-
ing method:5
1233
Table 1. Voting Matrix with
Three Alternatives and 11 Voters
a b c
a 8 6
b 5 — 11
c 7 2 —
1. All possible opinions that do not imply a con-
tradiction reduce to an indication of the order of
merit that one judges to exist among the candi-
dates . . . . therefore for n candidates one would
have n{n — 1) . . . 2 possible opinions.
2. Each voter having thus given his or her
opinion by indicating the candidates' order of
worth, if one compares them two by two, one
will have in each opinion n(n — l)/2 proposi-
tions to consider separately. Taking the number
of times that each is contained in the opinion of
one of the q voters, one will have the number of
voices who are for each proposition.
3. One forms an opinion from those n(n —
l)/2 propositions that agree with the most
voices. If this opinion is among the n(n — 1). . .
2 possible opinions, one regards as elected the
subject to whom this opinion accords the pref-
erence. If this opinion is among the 2" (n ~ 1>/2 —
n(n — 1 ) . . . 2 impossible opinions, then one suc-
cessively deletes from that impossible opinion
the propositions that have the least plurality, and
one adopts the opinion from those that remain.
(1785, 125-26)
Let us apply this rule to the situation in
Table 1. First we are to choose the three
propositions having a majority, namely b
> c with eleven votes, a > b with eight
votes, and c > a with seven votes. Since
these three propositions form a cycle,
however, we delete the proposition with
smallest plurality, namely c > a. This
leaves the combination b > c and a > b
(and implicitly a > c), which implies the
ranking a > b > c.
The rule is clear enough in the case of
three alternatives. However, in the
general case some ambiguities arise. The
difficulty lies in the phrase "successively
deletes" in step 3. Taken literally, it means
the following: If there are cycles in the
propositions selected in step 2, delete first
the proposition having the least number
of votes in its favor. (This proposition
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
Table 2. A Voting Matrix with
25 Voters and Four Alternatives
a b c d
a 12 15 17
b 13 — 16 11
c 10 9 18
d 8 14 7 —
might or might not be contained in a
cycle.) If any cycles remain, delete next
the proposition with the next lowest num-
ber of votes in its favor, and so forth.
Continue until all cycles are eliminated.
There are several reasons why this is
probably not what Condorcet meant to
say. In the first place, the procedure may
yield an ambiguous ordering of the candi-
dates. Consider Table 2, with twenty-five
voters and four candidates.
In step 2 of Condorcet's algorithm one
would select the six propositions having
greatest majorities. In descending size of
majority, these are c > d, a > d, b > c, a
> c, d >b, b > a. According to a literal
reading of step 3, one would first delete
the proposition b > a, as it has the small-
est majority in its favor. But this does not
result in an "opinion" because one cycle
still remains: b > c, c > d, d >b. There-
fore one would delete the proposition d >
b, as it has the next-smallest majority in
its favor. All cycles are now eliminated.
But there is a difficulty: in the resulting
partial order both a and b are undomi-
nated. Either one of them could be inter-
preted as the top-ranked candidate, so the
outcome is indeterminate.
It seems more likely that Condorcet
meant to reverse, rather than simply
delete, the weakest propositions. Accord-
ing to this interpretation one would first
reverse the proposition with the least
majority (thus b > a becomes a > b),
then reverse the proposition with the
next-least majority (thus d> b becomes b
> d) and so forth until no cycles remain.
1234
In the above example the resulting
opinion is abed. Unfortunately, this
answer does not square with the rest of
Condorcet's argument. His stated inten-
tion is to choose "the most probable com-
bination of opinions," that is, the set of
propositions that contains no cycles and is
supported by the largest number of pair-
wise votes. The total number of votes
supporting the ranking abed is 89. (That
is, the sum of the votes for a over b, a
over c, a over d, b over c, b over d, and c
over d equals 89.) But this is not a maxi-
mum. The ranking bacd is supported by a
total of 90 pairwise votes. This ranking is
obtained by reversing exactly one major-
ity proposition, d > b. Note that this
is not the proposition with smallest
majority.
At this point we might be tempted to
throw up our hands and declare, as pre-
vious commentators have, that "the gen-
eral rules for the case of any number of
candidates as given by Condorcet are
stated so briefly as to be hardly intelligible
. . . and as no examples are given it is
quite hopeless to find out what Condorcet
meant" (E. J. Nanson as quoted in Black
1958, 175). Even the influential mathe-
matician Isaac Todhunter found Con-
dorcet's argument completely exasperat-
ing: "The obscurity and self-contradiction
are without any parallel, so far as our
experience of mathematical works extends
. . . no amount of examples can convey an
adequate impression of the evils" (Tod-
hunter 1949, 352).
In fact, Condorcet's overall intention is
quite clear. It is to find the most probable
combination of opinions. In describing his
method he seems to have used the term
"successively deletes" rather loosely as a
heuristic for computing the solution.6 (He
may also have believed, mistakenly, that
successive deletion always does give the
most probable combination.) But there
appears to be little doubt about his objec-
tive. Hence I propose to amend Con-
dorcet's statement of the rule as follows:
 Condorcet's Theory

3'. One forms an opinion from those n(n — l)/2 Consider again the voting matrix in
propositions that agree with the most voices. If Table 1. Suppose that the true ranking is
this opinion is among the n(n — 1 ) . . . 2 possible
opinions, one regards as elected the subject to abc—a first, b second, c third. A vote for
whom this opinion accords the preference. If this a over b will occur with probability 1 —
opinion is among the 2" (n ~ 1)/2 - n(n — 1). . . 2 p, whereas a vote for b over a will occur
impossible opinions, then one reverses in that with the lesser probability 1 — p. The
impossible opinion the set of propositions that
have the least combined plurality and one adopts combined probability of observing the 39
the opinion from those that remain. pairwise votes in Table 1 is therefore
It seems reasonably likely that this is Uabc) [p s (l - p)5]
what Condorcet meant to say. In any 815!
case, it is the only interpretation that is
consistent with his goal of finding the i3!
ranking that is most likely to be correct. 617! 1112!
= (131)3 [p25(1_p)14]_

Condorcet's Method As a 8151617111I2!

Statistical Hypothesis Test Similarly, the probability of observing the
From a historical standpoint, Con- results in Table 1 if the true ranking is acb
dorcet's theory is particularly interesting would be
because it represents one of the earliest
applications of what today would be Uabc) = J 3 ! [p8(l - p)5]
called "statistical hypothesis testing." 815!
Based on a sample of observations, one
_HL fp6(l - p)7] 1 3 ! [p2(l - p)11]
wishes to infer which of several under- 6!7! 1112!
lying but unobservable states of nature is
most likely to be true. This approach is (13!)3 ,„„,! _ Mx»,
known as maximum likelihood estima- 8!5!6!7111!2!
tion. All that is required is a model of how
the observed quantities depend proba- The coefficient is the same for all six rank-
bilistically on the unobservable state of ings, so their relative likelihoods are as in
nature. In Condorcet's scheme of things a Table 3.
state of nature corresponds to the true or For each ranking the exponent of p is
correct ordering of the candidates. This the sum of all pairwise votes that agree
datum is essentially unobservable. What with the ranking, and the exponent of (1
can be observed are the votes of the repre- — p) is the sum of all pairwise votes that
sentatives who are attempting to read the disagree with it. Assuming that p > 1/2,
true state of nature.
Condorcet assumed, first, that in any
pairwise comparison each voter will Table 3. Likelihoods of Six Rankings
choose the better candidate with some Based on Table 1 Data
fixed probability p, where 1/2 < p < 1
and p is the same for all voters. 7 Second, Ranking Likelihood
every voter's judgment on every pair of abc
candidates is independent of his or her abc
judgment on every other pair. Finally, bac
each voter's judgment is independent of bca
cab
the other voters' judgments (a significant cba
assumption).

1235
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
which seems to be a credibly optimistic
view of human judgment, it follows that
the most likely ranking is the one with the
highest exponent of p. In the above exam-
ple the answer is abc.
In general, suppose that there are n
voters and m candidates or alternatives
« ! , . . . , «m- Let n,ybe the total number of
votes that a, receives over a,-. Assume that
every voter registers an opinion on every
pair of candidates, so that n{; + rip = n
for all i =£ /. Let R be a complete ranking
of the candidates, where atR «;means that
«, is preferred to a,-. The argument out-
lined above is easily generalized to show
that a ranking R has maximum likelihood
if and only if it maximizes En;,, the sum
over all pairs ij such that fl,/?a,. That is,
the maximum likelihood ranking is the
one that agrees with the maximum num-
ber of pairwise votes, summed over all
pairs of candidates. This is equivalent to
the statement of Condorcet's rule given in
3'. Note that it does not depend on the
value of the success rate p as long as all
voters have the same success rate, which
is larger than one half. This rule is very
natural and, not surprisingly, has been
rediscovered by other writers. In particu-
lar it was proposed in a different guise by
John Kemeny (1959; see also Kemeny and
Snell 1960) and is sometimes known in the
literature as "Kemeny's rule" (Young and
Levenglick 1978).
Condorcet versus Borda
Another pioneer in the theory of elec-
tions was the Chevalier Jean Charles de
Borda. Like Condorcet, Borda was a
member of the French Academy of Sci-
ences and an important figure in official
scientific circles. Unlike Condorcet, he
was an applied scientist with a practical
bent. He was noted for his work in
hydraulics, mechanics, optics, and
especially for the design of advanced
navigational instruments. He also cap-
tained maritime vessels. Because of his ex-
1236
pertise in measurement, he served on the
committee for determining the standard
weights and measures in the new metric
system (Mascart 1919).
In 1770, some 15 years prior to the pub-
lication of Condorcet's treatise on elec-
tions, Borda read a paper to the academy
on the design of voting procedures (see
Borda 1784). Exactly what prompted
Borda to sail in these uncharted waters is
unclear. Possibly he was concerned with
reforming the election procedures in the
academy itself. He began by pointing out
the defects with the customary "first-past-
the-post" system in which the candidate
with the largest plurality is elected. When
there are many candidates, this procedure
can easily elect someone who is endorsed
by only a small minority of the electorate.
Instead, Borda suggested, the election
procedure should be based on each voter's
entire rank ordering of the candidates.
The correct candidate to choose is the one
that on average stands highest in the
voters' lists.
Operationally, the method works as
follows: Each voter submits a list in which
all of the candidates are rank-ordered. In
each list a candidate who is ranked last
receives a score of zero, a candidate who
is ranked next-to-last receives a score of
one, a candidate who is ranked next
above that receives a score of two, and so
forth. Thus the score of a candidate in any
particular list is equal to the number of
candidates ranked lower on that list. The
scores of the candidates are summed over
all voter lists and the candidates with
highest total score is elected.
If Borda's objective was practical re-
form, he appears to have been successful,
for something like his method was subse-
quently adopted for the election of new
members to the academy.8
Condorcet was certainly aware of
Borda's work. Indeed he introduced the
method in the Essai with the following
remark: "As the celebrated Geometer to
whom one owes this method has pub-
 Condorcet's Theory
lished nothing on this subject, I have
taken the liberty of citing it here" (1785,
clxxix).' Condorcet repeatedly refers to
Borda, not by name, but as "the cele-
brated Geometer." The tone is ironical.
From his private correspondence it is clear
that Condorcet held Borda's work in low
esteem and considered him a personal
enemy within the academy. For example,
in a letter to Turgot (1775), he gave this
assessment: "[M. Malesherbes] makes a
great case for Borda, not because of his
memoirs, some of which suggest talent
(although nothing will ever come of them,
and no one has ever spoken of them or
ever will) but because he is what one calls
a good academician, that is to say because
he speaks in meetings of the Academy and
asks for nothing better than to waste his
time doing prospectuses, examining
machines, etc., and above all because,
feeling eclipsed by other geometers, he,
like d'Arcy, has abandoned geometry for
petty physics" (quoted in Henry 1883).
The contempt with which Condorcet
viewed Borda's scientific contributions
may help to clarify an abrupt shift in Con-
dorcet's argument. As we have already
seen, Condorcet's initial objective was to
design a method for estimating the "true"
ranking of the candidates. But he also
recognized that the problem is often one
of determining which single candidate is
most likely to be best (1785, lxi-lxv, 122-
23). At first glance the solution would
appear to be obvious: first rank all of the
candidates and then choose the one that is
top-ranked. But this is not necessarily the
most convincing answer.
Consider the following example of
Condorcet (1785, lxiii) with 60 voters and
three candidates. Here c has a simple
majority over both a and b and b has a
simple majority over a. So there are no
cycles, and the ranking by Condorcet's
rule is cba. That is, cba is the ranking
most likely to be correct. But is c the can-
didate that is most likely to be the best
(i.e., top-ranked in the true ranking)?
1237
Table 4. A Voting Matrix with
60 Voters and Three Candidates
a b c
a 23 29
b 37 — 29
c 31 31 —
Not necessarily. Candidate c will be best
if two propositions hold: namely, if c is
better than a(c > a) and c is better than b
(c > b). We are therefore interested in the
joint probability of these two statements
being true. If c > a, then the probability
of observing the voting pattern in Table 4
(31 votes for c versus 29 for a) is
(60!/31!29!)p31(l - p)29. If the contrary
holds (a > c), then the probability of
observing 31 votes for c versus 29 for a is
(60!/31!29)p"(l - p)31. Assume that a >
c and c > a are a priori equally likely.
Then the probability of observing the
vote 31 for c, 29 for a is
Pr(vote) = (60!/31!29!) (p»(l - p)"
By Bayes' rule10 it follows that the poster-
ior probability of c > a, given the ob-
served vote, is
Pr(c > a|vote) =
Pr(vote|c > a)Pr(c > a)
Pr(vote)
that is,
Pr(c > «|vote) =
Similarly,
Pr(c > b|vote)
- p) 2 - p)
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
Therefore the posterior probability that c
is best is
Pr(c|vote) =
Pr(c > a|vote)Pr(c fc|vote)
The posterior probability that b is best is
Pr(b|vote) =
p37(l - p)"p»(l - p)»
[p37(l - p)" + p23(l - p)"] X
[p«(l ~ p)31 + P31(l - p)2']
And the posterior probability that a is
best is
Pr(fl|vote)
- p) 31
[p"(l - p)" + p3'(l - p)"] x
+ pHl ~ p)29]}.
Which of a, b, or c has the highest
posterior probability? The answer de-
pends on the assumed value of the com-
petence level p. If p is close to one, then
the controlling factor is the size of the
exponent of 1 — p. The most probable
candidate will be the one whose weakest
comparison is as strong as possible.11 In
this case the answer would be c, because
the lowest number of votes that c receives
in any pairwise contest is 31, while a's
weakest showing is 23 and b's is 29.
Suppose instead that p is close to 1/2,
that is, p = 1/2 + e for some small e > 0.
In this case the relative probabilities de-
pend essentially only on the numerators
of the above three expressions. Substitut-
ing in p = 1/2 + e we find that the rela-
tive probabilities of a, b, and c can be
approximated as follows:
a: (1/2 + e
b: (1/2 + e
c: (1/2 + e)3I(l/2 -
If we expand these expressions using the
binomial formula and drop all powers of e
higher than the first, then the relative
probabilities of the three candidates are
1238
approximately as follows:
a: (1/2)"° + (l/2)"»(23 - 37 + 29 - 31)e
b: (1/2)120 + (l/2)"'(37 - 23 + 29 - 31)e
c: (1/2)120 + (1/2)"'(31 - 29 + 31 - 29)e.
In each case the coefficient of e is the sum
of all pairwise votes for the candidate
minus the sum of all pairwise votes
against the candidate. Since the total
number of votes (for and against) is the
same for all candidates, the coefficient of e
will be maximized for that candidate that
receives the most pairwise votes over all
others. In this case the answer is b.
This argument is quite general. For any
number of voters and any number of
alternatives, if p is sufficiently close to
1/2, then the candidate with the highest
probability of being best is the one that
receives the most pairwise votes. This is
precisely the Borda candidate. The reason
is that the Borda score of a candidate in
each individual voter's list is equal to the
number of candidates ranked below it,
that is, the number that it beats. So a can-
didate's total Borda score is its row sum in
the voting matrix.12
Borda's method is therefore one solu-
tion to Condorcet's problem. In particu-
lar, a candidate that beats every other by
simple majority does not necessarily have
the strongest claim to being the best can-
didate; the Borda winner may be
stronger.13 Condorcet apparently realized
this implication of his argument. Under-
standably, he would be loath to draw
much attention to it, given his feelings
toward Borda. In addition, Condorcet
may have become disillusioned with his
approach because of its failure to provide
a simple and definitive solution inde-
pendently of the competence level p.
For whatever reason, Condorcet
abruptly changed course at this point in
the Essai (1785, lxiii-lxv). He abandoned
the statistical framework that he had so
painstakingly built up and fell back on a
more "straightforward" line of reasoning.
In doing so he opened up a whole new
 Condorcet's Theory
approach that has had enormous influ-
ence on the modern theory of social
choice. To illustrate Condorcet's new-
found argument, consider the example in
Table 4. If a candidate, such as c, obtains
a simple majority over every other candi-
date then, Condorcet argued, that candi-
date is the only reasonable choice. Indeed,
candidate a has no reasonable claim to
being best, therefore a should be set aside.
So the contest is between b and c. But c
defeats b, so the choice must come down
on the side of c.
More generally, Condorcet proposed
that whenever a candidate obtains a sim-
ple majority over every other candidate,
then that candidate is presumptively the
"best." This decision rule is now known as
"Condorcet's criterion," and such a candi-
date (if it exists) is a "Condorcet win-
ner" or a "majority candidate" (Fishburn
1973).
In advancing this new approach, Con-
dorcet was not abandoning his basic
premise that the object of voting is to
make the "correct" choice. He merely
shifted his ground and argued for adopt-
ing a simple estimate of the best choice
rather than a complex one. Furthermore,
this "new" approach is entirely consistent
with Condorcet's earlier solution of the
ranking problem. Indeed, if a majority
candidate exists, then it must be ranked
first in a Condorcet ranking. The reason is
simple. Suppose that x is a Condorcet
candidate but that this candidate is not
ranked on top in the Condorcet ranking.
Then it must be ranked just below some
other candidate y. By assumption, x
defeats y by a simple majority. Therefore,
if we switch only the order of x and y in
the ranking, then we obtain a new rank-
ing that is supported by more pairwise
votes. But this contradicts the definition
of the Condorcet ranking as the one sup-
ported by the maximum number of pair-
wise votes. Thus Condorcet's choice rule
is consistent with his ranking rule when-
ever a majority candidate exists.
1239
While Condorcet's solution is attrac-
tive, Borda's rule still has advantages that
cannot be dismissed easily. First, it is con-
siderably simpler to compute than Con-
dorcet's ranking rule. Second, if one
accepts Condorcet's basic premises, then
the Borda winner is in fact a better esti-
mate of the best candidate provided that p
is close to 1/2. Third, if p is not close to
1/2, then it is still very likely that the
Borda winner is the best candidate, even
though strictly speaking it may not be the
optimum estimate of the best candidate.14
If there are a large number of voters and p
is not very close to 1/2, then the probabil-
ity is very high that the truly best candi-
date will be selected by any reasonable
choice rule (i.e., with high probability it
will be the majority winner and the Borda
winner at the same time). The critical case
is precisely when p is near 1/2, and then
Borda's rule is definitely optimal. Thus we
must either jettison the whole idea of
selecting the "best" candidate with high
probability or admit that Borda's rule is a
good way of estimating which candidate
that is.
On the other hand, when the problem is
to rank a set of alternatives, Condorcet's
rule is undoubtedly better than Borda's.
Furthermore, even if one does not accept
the specific probability model on which
this conclusion is based, Condorcet's rule
has an important stability property that
Borda's rule lacks, as I shall now show.
Local Stability and
Nonmanipulability
One of the most important concepts in
the theory of social choice is independ-
ence: a social decision procedure should
depend only on the voters' preferences for
the "relevant" alternatives, not on their
preferences for alternatives that are in-
feasible or outside the domain of dis-
course. Independence has been given sev-
eral distinct formulations (Arrow 1963;
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
Table 5. A Voting Matrix on Six Alternatives and 100 Voters
a b c d
a 1 _ 51 54 1 58
b 1 49 68 | 56
c | 46 32 70
- 1
d 42 44 30
e 40 48 34 59
f 38 42 25 36
Nash 1950). The one that I shall adopt
here is closest in spirit to Nash's version: if
the set of alternatives shrinks, then the re-
duced set of alternatives should be ranked
in the same way that they were within the
larger ranking. There are at least two rea-
sons why independence is desirable. First,
it says that decisions cannot be manipu-
lated by introducing extraneous alterna-
tives. Second, it allows sensible decisions
to be made without requiring an evalua-
tion of all possible decisions. In practice,
society cannot consider all possible
choices in a situation. It cannot, or at least
usually does not, even consider all of the
best choices. In choosing a candidate for
public office, for example, it is impractical
to consider all eligible citizens. In con-
sidering a piece of legislation, it is impos-
sible to hold votes on all possible amend-
ments. Independence assures that a deci-
sion made from a limited agenda of alter-
natives is valid relative to that agenda.
Enlarging the agenda may introduce bet-
ter possibilities, but it should not cause us
to revise the relative ranking of the old
possibilities.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to design
any reasonable social decision rule with
this property. I claim, however, that
independence can be satisfied if we restrict
ourselves to agendas that are sufficiently
"connected." By a connected agenda I
mean, roughly speaking, a subset of close-
ly related alternatives rather than an arbi-
trary collection of unrelated or extreme
1240
e f Borda Scores
60 62 285
51 58 283
66 75 289
41 64 221
34 215
66 207
ones. Consider the following example: A
legislature of 100 members is considering
three alternative decisions a, b, and c (see
Table 5). Other alternatives might in
theory be considered, such as d, e, and /,
but they are weaker than a, b, and c in the
sense that any one of them would be de-
feated by any one of a, b, or c.
The question is whether the exclusion
of the nominally "inferior" alternatives d,
e, f affect the choice between a, b, and c.
Put differently, can an inferior alternative
be introduced strategically in order to
manipulate the choice between the
"superior" alternatives? This is surely a
situation that we would like to avoid. Un-
fortunately Borda's rule suffers from this
defect. To see this, observe that the total
Borda score of each alternative is simply
the sum of the row entries corresponding
to that alternative (e.g., the right-hand
column of Table 5). These scores imply
the ranking cabdef. Now consider just the
three alternatives «, b, and c. The cor-
responding voting matrix is the one en-
closed by dashed lines. The Borda scores
for this three-alternative situation are 117
for b, 105 for a, and 78 for c. Hence when
just the top three alternatives are con-
sidered, they would be ordered bac,
which is the reverse of how the electorate
would have ordered them in the context
of all alternatives. Introducing the inferior
alternatives changes the outcome from b
toe.
I claim that Condorcet's rule is immune
 Condorcet's Theory
to this type of instability. To compute the
Condorcet solution observe first that a
has a simple majority over every other
alternative, hence (as was demonstrated
in the previous section) Condorcet's rule
must rank a first. Since each of the alter-
natives a, b, and c defeats each of the
alternatives d, e, and / by a majority, it
also follows that the former three alter-
natives must be ranked above the latter
three. For if this were not the case, then
some alternative would be ranked im-
mediately below another alternative that
it defeats, which is impossible in a Con-
dorcet ranking. To maximize agreement
with the pairwise voting data, a must be
ranked first, b second, and c third. Posi-
tions four, five, and six in the ranking will
be occupied by d, e, and / in some order.
To determine which order, it suffices to
apply Condorcet's criterion to these three
alternatives alone; that is, they should be
ordered so as to agree with the maximum
number of pairwise votes that they
receive among themselves. The reader
may verify that the ordering that accom-
plishes this objective is dfe. Hence the
total ordering implied by Condorcet's rule
is abcdfe. This is quite different from the
Borda ordering.
I have worked out the details of this
example to show that Condorcet's rule is
not necessarily difficult to compute even
when a sizable number of alternatives is
involved (though it is certainly more diffi-
cult than Borda's method). It also illus-
trates why Condorcet's method satisfies a
certain form of independence. For exam-
ple, if the bottom three alternatives are
dropped from consideration, then Con-
dorcet's rule (unlike Borda's) must pre-
serve the ordering abc. Indeed, if it did
not, then the interval abc could be re-
arranged into a new ordering that is sup-
ported by more pairwise votes. But then
abc could also be rearranged within the
full ordering abcdfe to obtain a new
ordering that is supported by more pair-
wise votes. This contradicts the assump-
1241
tion that abcdfe is supported by the maxi-
mum number of pairwise votes. A similar
argument applies if the last two alterna-
tives are dropped, the last four, or indeed
any bottom segment of the ranking. Simi-
larly, the ordering of the bottom part of
the list will be preserved if we remove the
top alternative, the top two alternatives,
or any top segment of the ranking.
In general, a Condorcet ranking has the
property that the ordering of the alter-
natives does not change whenever we
restrict attention to an interval of the full
ordering.15 This property will be called
local stability. Intervals tend to consist of
alternatives that are relatively closely
related. For example, an interval might
consist of a set of candidates that occupy
a certain segment of the political spectrum
(e.g., "centrist"). Or it might consist of a
series of minor modifications or amend-
ments to a proposed piece of legislation.
I shall show that Condorcet's method is
the only plausible ranking procedure that
is locally stable. To do so we must recall
several properties that are standard in the
social choice literature. Let F be a social
ranking rule, that is, a rule for strictly
ordering any set of alternatives given the
preference data of the voters. We shall
assume that the input data to F is given in
the form of a voting matrix: the number
of votes for and against each pair of alter-
natives. All voters are weighted equally
because only the number of votes counts,
not the identities of the individuals who
cast the votes. This property is known in
the literature as anonymity. F is neutral if
it is not "biased" with respect to one or
another alternative: if the names of the
alternatives are permuted, then their
ranking is similarly permuted. Taken
together, anonymity and neutrality re-
quire that F sometimes yields ties.16 A
third standard condition in the social
choice literature is that F be unanimous: if
all voters cast their votes the same way on
every pair, then the ordering of the candi-
dates agrees with all of the votes.
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82
Finally we shall require a degree of con-
sistency in the way that F aggregates
individual opinions into group opinions.
Consider a bicameral system such as the
U.S. Congress. To pass, a decision must
receive a majority of both chambers. This
much is clear when a decision involves
just two choices. Now consider a decision
involving more than two alternatives.
Suppose that both chambers use the same
decision rule F, and that they consider the
same agenda. Let each chamber separate-
ly rank all of the alternatives. If both
chambers happen to rank them in exactly
the same way, then we may say that this
ranking is approved by both chambers. If
a ranking is approved by both chambers,
then it stands to reason that it would also
be approved if the two chambers were to
be considered as a single body (i.e., to
cast their votes in plenary session). Fsatis-
fies reinforcement if whenever a ranking
is approved by two separate groups of
voters, then it would also be approved
when the votes of the two groups are
pooled.17
The condition of "local stability" can
now be formally stated as follows: Let A
be an agenda of alternatives, let V be a
voting matrix on A, and let F(V) = R be
the (unique) consensus ranking. F is local-
ly stable if for every interval B of the rank-
ing R, F(VB) = RBwhere VBand RBrepre-
sent V and R restricted to the subset B. In
case of ties, the condition says that for
every R e F(V), every interval B of R, RBe
F(VB), and if R'Be F(VB) for some R'B *
RB, then /?'Bcan be substituted for RBin R
to obtain a new ranking R! e F(V).
It follows from a theorem of myself and
Arthur Levenglick (1978) that Condor-
cet's rule is the unique ranking rule that
satisfies anonymity, neutrality, unanim-
ity, reinforcement, and local stability.18
Note that Borda's rule satisfies all of these
properties except local stability.
Conclusion
The purpose of this article has been to
draw attention to a major, but little-
1242
known, contribution by Condorcet to the
theory of group decision making. Con-
dorcet proposed a decision rule that ap-
plies to any voting situation whether
cyclic majorities are present or not. This
rule can be interpreted as a best guess
about the "true" ordering of the alterna-
tives. The rule can also be justified on
entirely diffeent grounds; namely, it is
unbiased with respect to both individuals
and alternatives and it aggregates indi-
vidual opinions in a "consistent" way.
This axiomatic justification differs signifi-
cantly from the probabilistic one in that
it places emphasis on the operational
properties of the method rather than on a
model about how the world works. Of
course one may still question whether
these are the "right" properties, just as one
may question whether Condorcet had the
"right" probabilistic model. But at least
the nature of the choice is clarified. Fur-
thermore, one must admit that the specific
probabilistic model by which Condorcet
reached his conclusions is almost certainly
not correct in its details. The plausibility
of his solution must therefore be subjected
to other tests, as I have attempted to do.
I conclude that there is a strong case for
Condorcet's rule on two counts. First, in
situations where voters are primarily con-
cerned with the accuracy of a decision (as
in jury trials, expert opinion pooling, and
in some types of public referenda), Con-
dorcet's method gives the ranking of the
outcomes that is most likely to be correct.
Second, where voters are motivated pri-
marily by their subjective preferences
about outcomes, Condorcet's rule is re-
sponsive to changes in individual pref-
erences, is unbiased with respect to voters
and alternatives, and (unlike Borda's rule)
it is relatively stable against manipulation
by the introduction of unrealistic or in-
ferior alternatives. In short, we need not
resolve the question whether voters
attempt to judge which decision is in the
public interest or whether they merely
register their subjective opinions on an
issue. Both of these elements are probably
present in most decisions. In either case,
 Condorcet's Theory
Condorcet's method is a rational way of
aggregating individual choices into a col-
lective preference ordering.
Notes
This work was supported by the Office of Naval
Research under contract N00014-86-K-0586 at the
University of Maryland. The author is indebted to
Bernard Grofman and William Riker for very help-
ful comments on the manuscript.
1. Condorcet did not explicitly say that he was
addressing Rousseau's problem, but Rousseau's
ideas would have been much discussed in Condor-
cet's circles. Baker (1975, 229) also suggests that
Condorcet drew his inspiration from Rousseau.
Grofman and Feld (1988) explore the connections
between Condorcet's and Rousseau's ideas in greater
depth.
2. Poisson (1837) studied a similar set of ques-
tions using probabilistic methods. See also Gelfand
and Solomon (1973) for recent work in the Poisson
tradition.
3. A related problem is to rank teams or players
based on their win-loss records (as in baseball, ten-
nis, or chess). Condorcet's model can be used to
estimate the most likely true ordering of the players
(see Batchelder and Bershad 1979; Good 1955; Jech
1983).
4. The following preference data would yield the
pairwise votes in Table 1: six voters have preference
abc, five voters have preference bca, and two voters
have preference cab. It bears emphasizing, however,
that Condorcet did not think of the voters' opinions
as expressing their personal preferences. Rather, they
represent the voters' best judgments as to which can-
didate in each pair is the better one.
5. In this translation I have modified the mathe-
matical notation slightly to conform with modern
conventions.
6. Michaud (1985) comes to a similar conclu-
sion.
7. I exclude the case p = 1, because this would
imply that all voters agree with probability one. The
case where the voters have different a priori proba-
bilities of being right is treated in Young 1986 (see
also Nitzan and Paroush [1982] and Shapley and
Grofman [1984]).
8. For reasons that remain obscure, Borda's
method was jettisoned by Napoleon after his own
election to membership (Mascart 1919).
9. In a footnote, Condorcet adds that his own
treatise "had been printed in its entirety before I had
any acquaintance with this method [of Borda], apart
from the fact that I had heard several people speak
of it" (1785, clxxix).
1243
10. Condorcet arrived at this answer intuitively,
not by an explicit application of Bayes' rule.
11. This "minimax" rule was proposed in modern
times by Kramer (1977).
12. Borda himself gave this alternative statement
of his method.
13. This idea was conjectured independently by
Grofman (1981). The distinction between the major-
ity alternative and the alternative most likely to be
best has also been discussed by Baker (1975) and
Urken and Traflet (1984).
14. The following argument was suggested by
Bernard Grofman.
15. This property of Condorcet's method (which
is known in the literature as the "median proce-
dure") was noted by Jacquet-Lagreze (1969). For
other results on the median procedure see Michaud
and Marcotorchino (1978), Barthelemy and Mon-
jardet (1981), Michaud (1985), and Barthelemy and
McMorris (1986).
16. For example, if there are an even number of
voters and every pairwise vote is a tie, then anony-
mity and neutrality imply that all linear orderings of
the alternatives are equally valid. Thus F must some-
times take on multiple values.
17. We require furthermore that if another rank-
ing is approved by only one of the two groups, then
it is not tied with a ranking that is approved by both
of them.
18. Let F satisfy the five conditions of the theo-
rem. When there are exactly two alternatives, it
follows that F is simple majority rule (Young 1974).
Now consider the case of more than two alterna-
tives. Let R be the social order. Local stability im-
plies that whenever two alternatives are ranked one
immediately above another in R, then their ordering
remains invariant when F is restricted to those two
alternatives alone. Since F is simple majority rule on
every two alternatives, it follows that in the social
order R every alternative must defeat (or tie) the
alternative ranked immediately below it. Further-
more, if the two alternatives are tied, then they may
be switched to obtain a social ordering tied with R. It
can be shown by induction on the number of alter-
natives that this property, together with neutrality,
unanimity, and reinforcement implies that F is Con-
dorcet's ranking rule (Young and Levenglick 1978).
References
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1963. Social Choice and Indi-
vidual Values. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley.
Baker, Keith M. 1975. Condorcet. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Barthelemy, J. P., and F. R. McMorris. 1986. "The
Median Procedure for n-Trees." Journal of Clas-
sification 3:329-34.
Barthelemy, J. P., and Bernard Monjardet. 1981.
"The Median Procedure in Cluster Analysis and
 American Political Science Review Vol. 82

Social Choice Theory." Mathematical Social Sci- bers." Daedalus 88:571-91.

ences 1:235-67.
Batchelder, William, and N. J. Bershad. 1979. "The
Statistical Analysis of a Thurstonian Model for
Rating Chess Players." Journal of Mathematical Kramer, Gerald. 1977. "A Dynamical Model of
Psychology 19:39-60.
Black, Duncan. 1958. The Theory of Committees
and Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Borda, Jean Charles de. 1784. "Me"moire sur les Elec- Michaud, P. 1985. "Hommage a Condorcet (version
tions au Scrutin." In Histoire de L'Academie
Royale des Sciences.
Condorcet, Marquis de. 1785. Essaisur I'application
de I'analyse a la probabilite des decisions rendues Michaud, P., and J. F. Marcotorchino. 1978.
A la probabilite des voix. Paris: De l'imprimerie
royale.
Fishburn, Peter C. 1973. The Theory of Social
Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gelfand, Alan, and Herbert Solomon. 1973. "A
Study of Poisson's Models for Jury Verdicts in
Criminal and Civil Trials." Journal of the Ameri-
can Statistical Association 68:271-78.
Good, I. J. 1955. "On the Marking of Chess Play-
ers." The Mathematical Gazette 39:292-96.
Grofman, Bernard. 1981. "When Is the Condorcet
Winner the Condorcet Winner?" University of
California, Irvine. Typescript.
Grofman, Bernard, and Scott Feld. 1988. "Rous-
seau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspec-
tive." American Political Science Review 82:
567-76.
Grofman, Bernard, and Guillermo Owen, eds. 1986.
Information Pooling and Group Decision Mak-
ing. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Grofman, Bernard, Guillermo Owen, and Scott
Feld. 1983. "Thirteen Theorems in Search of the
Truth." Theory and Decision 15:261-78.
Henry, Charles, ed. 1883. Correspondance Inedite
de Condorcet et de Turgot 1770-1779. Paris:
Charavay freres.
Jacquet-Lagreze, E. 1969. "L'Agre'gation des
opinions individuelles." In Informatiques et sci-
ences humaines, vol. 4.
Jech, Thomas. 1983. "The Ranking of Incomplete
Tournaments: A Mathematician's Guide to Pop-
ular Sports." American Mathematical Monthly
90:246-66.
Kemeny, John. 1959. "Mathematics without Num-
Kemeny, John, and Lawrence Snell. 1960. Mathe-
matical Models in the Social Sciences. Boston:
Ginn.
Political Equilibrium." Journal of Economic
Theory 16:310-34.
Mascart, Jean. 1919. La Vie et les travaux du
Chevalier Jean Charles de Borda. Paris: Rey.
integrate pour le bicentenaire de l'essai de Con-
dorcet)." Etude F-094. Centre scientifique-IBM
France, Paris.
"Optimization in Ordinal Data Analysis." Etude
F-001. Centre Scientifique-IBM France, Paris.
Nash, John. 1950. "The Bargaining Problem."
Econometrica 18:155-62.
Nitzan, S., and J. Paroush. 1982. "Optimal Decision
Rules in Uncertain Dichotomous Situations."
International Economic Review 23:289-97.
Poisson, Simeon-Denis. 1837. Recherches sur la
probabilite des jugements en matiere criminale et
en mature civile, pricedees des regies generates
du calcul des probabilites. Paris: Bachelier.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. 1962. The Social Contract.
Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
Shapley, Lloyd S., and Bernard Grofman. 1984.
"Optimizing Group Judgmental Accuracy in the
Presence of Interdependencies." Public Choice
43:329-43.
Todhunter, Isaac. 1949. A History of the Mathe-
matical Theory of Probability. New York:
Chelsea.
Urken, Arnold B., and S. Traflet. 1984. "Optimal
Jury Design." Jurimetrics 24:218-35.
Young, H. Peyton. 1974. "An Axiomatization or
Borda's Rule." Journal of Economic Theory 9:
43-52.
Young, H. Peyton. 1986. "Optimal Ranking and
Choice from Pairwise Comparisons." In Infor-
mation Pooling and Group Decision Making, ed.
Bernard Grofman and Guillermo Owen. Green-
wich, CT: JAI.
Young, H. Peyton, and Arthur Levenglick. 1978. "A
Consistent Extension of Condorcet's Election
Principle." S1AM Journal on Applied Mathe-
matics 35:285-300.

H. P. Young is Professor of Public Policy and Applied Mathematics, School of Public

Affairs, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.

1244